Complaint filed by Arriaga Asociados against four Supreme Court justices for supreme court decisions regarding the IRPH mortgage index it can cost you dearly. 61st Chamber of the Supreme Court He refused because he had “not the slightest bit of credibility and closeness to the truth”.but in addition, he decided to send it to the prosecutor’s office, so that Determine if any of the statements you attribute to lying and coercion to judges are present. Law Office may constitute a crime. defamation of public officials in the performance of their duties.
The chamber, which is responsible for illuminating the complaints made against the judges of the high court, decided to take the step of downloading the statement so that the public ministry could determine whether there was a crime in the conditions in which the complaint was expressed and to file a criminal complaint. Implementation of proposed cases on communication and relations between the members of the chamber with the competent authorities and the members of the banking institutions, among which they belong investigating “possible bribes”.
Since there is no basis for the complaint, he further states that “good faith may exceed the most basic rules”, therefore, he files a separate lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Part of it Determining whether there was abuse of rights or procedural bad faith when making a complaint. For the time being, it charges the plaintiff “in view of the apparent recklessness in filing the complaint and on the basis of the grounds on which the complaint was made”.
lying
The car remembers: The lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it invalidated two sentences that estimated the two sources of a banking institution and nullified the declaration of invalidity of the IRPH index contained in loan agreements. analyzed in them to understand what happened.The accused magistrates would make an interpretation that would unjustly deviate from the principles and principles set by the Constitution. ABAD analyzing transparency and abuse of IRPH.
According to Chamber No. 61, “An examination of the judicial decisions made by the accused magistrates allows us to conclude that the attributed facts do not have criminal significance.. In the present case, contrary to the complainant’s claim, these judicial decisions were limited to the interpretation of the statements made in the preliminary questions raised by the CJEU. and to respond to the allegations made in the objections. And decisions that are questioned whether shared or not contain legal arguments that cannot be considered unreasonable, arbitrary, or unreasonable under specified conditions. On the contrary, after examining the allegations and/or arguments put forward as a basis for the objections made, a justified answer was given.”
“The Plaintiff – adds the warrant – makes a contradictory comment on the controversial issues examined in the judgments given by the accused magistrates, which, in their view, justifies the commission of the imputed perjury charge. Thus, the complaint is, in effect, an appeal against these decisions.”
with regard to his crime coercion, order states that the complaint does not provide objective data or any indication “regardless of subjective assessments”.To reveal “a kind of harmony between the different judges of the First Circuit Court of Appeals to deliberately favor banking institutions”. The raising of new questions for the preliminary ruling does not allow us to understand from a logical and rational point of view that such collusion could have taken place between the judges of a chamber of the Supreme Court set forth in the complaint”.